Talk:East West Rail

The Aylesbury to Bicester-Bletchley section

The 5 May 2009 edits have introduced (twice) a misunderstanding as regards the line north of Aylesbury. The line is open, but only for freight, apart from the section recently reopened to passengers as far as the new Aylesbury Vale station. The proposal is to bring the line up to fast passenger standard, but using the existing open single-track route, part of the old Great Central Main Line (GCML). There is no proposal to reopen the abandoned Aylesbury and Buckingham (A&B) route branching from the GCML route north of Quainton Road towards Verney Junction; the article is partly correct in that the part of the A&B from Quainton Road southwards was itself subsumed into the GCML when the latter opened in 1899.

On a more general point the edits have made the information on the western section rather less coherent (eg the Western section design considerations begins "The report" without identifying it); most of the information in what I have currently redesignated the 2008-9 subsection of the History section, including additional detail from the 5 May edits, needs moving back under the Western section heading, and re-editing.

I'll fix all of the these things together in my next edit session.

Ivanberti (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. But still some tidying up needed especially in respect of dead links in the references.

Ivanberti (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Good work; the article is getting much better with our efforts. One small thing we need to agree on in punctuation before or after the reference. I have been putting it before and your preference is after, we should at least be consistent across the article. The guidance makes a recommendation the period before the reference but I won't argue about it ;) PeterEastern (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Move article to East West Rail Link or similar?

The article is now dominated by content relating to the rail link rather than to the organisation which is given as the subject of the article. Givent that the consortium probably isn't notable itself would it would appropriate to move the article to 'East West Rail Link' or some similar title? One could also consider moving the content back to the Varsity Line but I don't think that is appropriate for a number of reasons. 1) The varsity line relates to a link between Oxford and Cambridge whereas this is a link from the Port fo Fexistowe to Oxford and beyond. 2) the route is not going to follow the old varsity line. 3) The Varsity Line has a lot of content already about the history of the route which will only get longer over time. PeterEastern (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Have added a redirect from East West Rail Link. I think in practice the Consortium version is quite well recognised and the organisation and project are pretty well indistinguishable. I've never attempted to rename an article. The Varsity Line article should definitely remain as a description of the historical railway. Ivanberti (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have confidence to rename the article if appropriate and to then restyle the introduction a little to make it more suitable for an article about a proposed rail link that involves a consortium as an important element rather than as an article able a consortium that happens to be proposing a railway line. Creating the redirect is good start. I still think it would be appropriate to move the article soon but lets wait for other opinion before actually doing more. PeterEastern (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the suggested MOVE. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at the 'what links here' page for this article to get an idea of how many inward links there are in preparation for a potential move and discovered that it listed many articles which possibly share a category with the article but certainly don't link directly to the article and aren't relevant. Is this new behaviour? it seems to make the function less useful than it should be. PeterEastern (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

move completed. I will sort out some linked articles over the next few days. PeterEastern (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Calvert Station status?

On the Great Central Main Line (part of the Aylesbury link) the station at Calvert is shown as being an open freight terminal, however on the linked article for Calvert Station it says that it is a closed passenger station. Is the old passenger railway station indeed open for freight, or is the freight terminal at a different place and should the line diagram be changed with an additional station and the Calvert station being changed to 'closed passenger station'? The position of the station from wikipedia when shown on Google Aerial photography shows that the freight terminal being about 1km to the south of the old station. PeterEastern (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it Calvert is a large-scale waste facility, and receives a number of waste trains daily. I doubt whether the site of the old passenger station coincides exactly, so what you have found out from Google appears entirely plausible. I'm afraid I don't know the precise configuration of the lines, but Route Plan 16 shows the waste site south of the junction. But I don't know of any proposal to reopen a passenger station there.

Ivanberti (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have added the Calvert Waste Facility as a separate element in the route diagram and adjusted the main text to match. Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this article need a route diagram?

East West Rail Link
Felixstowe Trinity Felixstowe Landguard Derby Road (Ipswich) Westerfield Ipswich on a branch from EW link Needham Market Stowmarket Elmswell Thurston Bury St Edmunds Kennett Cambridge Foxton Royston Ashwell and Morden Baldock Bedford Letchworth Biggleswade Stevenage Luton Flitwick Ampthill Stewartby Millbrook Lidlington Ridgmont Aspley Guise Woburn Sands Bow Brickhill Fenny Stratford Bletchley Milton Keynes Central Aylesbury Vale Parkway Aylesbury Bicester Town Islip Oxford GWR line to Didcot

Would this route benefit from a route diagram? Does anyone with the skills feel motivated to produce one? PeterEastern (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of it has aready been made at Varsity Line, it just needs to be expanded west of Oxford and east of Cambridge. If you could find out who drew that, he/she might be persuaded to extend it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have started chopping bits from other places and creating a route diagram. There is still lots for me to learn about making them but its a start. Needs to stay on the talk page until it is better though.

Things for me to do (or someone else for preference!)

• Work out how to do spurs
• Add Norwich Spur
• Add Stansted Airport Link
• Get the Aylesbury spur to work
• Get the Felixstowe port bit to work
• Add more stations on the route
• Work out how to do the two options (south/central) for the missing section and find out what colour to use.

Quainton Road

Does anyone know whether this station which gets the occaissional summer Chiltern Railway services will be served as well? Simply south (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A rather (!) belated reply

@Simply south:, according to page 9 of the Inspector's report, it would seem so.

Application Ref : 18/02661/ALBBuckinghamshire Railway Centre Quainton Road Station, Station Road, Quainton HP22 4BY

• The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
• The application is made by Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd to Aylesbury Vale District Council and is dated 27 July 2018.
• The works proposed are works to Quainton Road Station (Buckinghamshire Railway Centre) involving the erection of new fencing along the platforms to provide protection, creation of two new door openings (one within the former station building and one within the platform shelter) and ancillary works.

Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to the

conditions in Appendix D of this Report.

References

Updates?

Due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent Autumn statement, I believe this article needs to be updates. Please see - http://eastwestrail.org.uk/east-west-rail-wins-support-of-chancellor-%E2%80%93-autumn-statement-backs-investment-in-east-west-rail/

May thanks, Bleaney (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The article has now been updated. Bleaney (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Updated map

I have updated the western section map to include more detail in the background. PeterEastern (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That's much better thank you. The previous map seemed to think most of MK wasn't there. You could colour the parts of open line that are being used by EWR too though? Then again that should be evident to readers from the rest of the article! Also the colour of HS2 isn't shown in the key and there are a couple of random stations floating by themselves near Oxford and Leighton Buzzard, the latter being the LBR stations but with no line between them. I'm just pointing these things out though, they don't change the fact it's a big improvement. Tom walker (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

MK Central needs to be connected via a junction at Bletchley, and shown as on the WCML. Winslow needs inserting before the junction (which needs adding) to the Aylesbury spur. There are a few other isolated stations which need junctions too. The other mainlines need showing. Also I think it would be good if we had

• • current active track in solid (even where currently used by other services),
  • historic but potentially reusable [not built over] trackbed in pink
  • additionally required track sections in dotted (template calls them 'interruptions'). btw, the Hertford North to East link is quite doable by putting an elevated line over the A419, though the junction at East might be a little tricky.

I'd have done this myself if the track template weren't so impenetrable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move (again)

'East West Rail' seems to be the common name for the project/future line. It is the name of the Consortium's website, on Network Rail's website and in most press pieces on the subject. I propose that the page should be moved accordingly to 'East West Rail'. 31.52.46.210 (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Existing trains used on Marston Vale Line

According to Marston Vale Line, the trains in use are British Rail Class 150 and British Rail Class 153 [which matches what I saw last time I was on it, about 9 months ago]. I don't believe that British Rail Class 165 is correct (nor does it match the info in the 165 article). However, the table is headed Planned rolling stock, so maybe someone has info about the plans?

But if we allow that, the table gets complicated because, as of now, there are two live services on the EWRL [a] between Oxford Parkway and Bicester Village (and on to Marylebone) and [b] between Bletchley and Bedford. So the table should show the trains in use now. I honestly can't see the point of speculating which trains, even which TOC, will be in service on the line this far in advance - now looking like being 2020-ish. So I'm commenting out the table until we have a consensus re if it should exist and if so, what it should contain. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I would omit all planned/future rolling stock, per WP:CRYSTAL. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact I'm not clear that the table belongs here at all. Does any other 'line' article have such a table? I've only seen it in TOC articles, which makes a lot more sense.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the speculative material completely as no-one has made a case to include it contrary to policy and convention.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Didcot

The lede refers to the western end of the line connecting to the GWRL at 'Didcot' (rather than Didcot or Didcot Parkway). Is there a reason for this? Is it premature to wlink to Parkway? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There's only one Didcot, and I live there. The word "Parkway" in the station name is superfluous, and we don't use it - except for estate agents and tourists. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"To link or not to link, that is the question." [With apologies to WS]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If I opened my eyes a bit more, I'd have seen that it is linked in the body already, just not the lede. Ignore. Exit, pursued by bear. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Network Rail plan Jan 16 still in draft

I added and then reverted the following text to "Developments Announcements"

In January 2016, following a review by Network Rail of its forward commitments, completion of the route has been rescheduled into the 2019-2024 Control Period. [source ]

because I'm jumping the gun: the NR Delivery Plan is still formally a draft. We need to wait to see who blinks first. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)

A quick scan of the East West Rail link article doesn't give any reference to the 'Electric Spine'. While I saw comments in Electric Spine that rail freight people weren't that enthusiastic about the concept, it probably has the push of politics behind it. I am no rail expert but electrifying Oxford to Bletchley is probably a cheaper option than Oxford to Coventry and as well as being useful for freight and would give an alternative route to London when there is disruption on the WCML. What I am suggesting is a link to the Electric Spine Wiki article and perhaps some updates from the Network Rail Jan16 draft update on CP5? Cantab72 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Well the Electric Spine article specifically mentions EWRL (at Electric Spine#Routes), so yes, we should. Go right ahead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed rolling stock

Per WP:CRYSTAL, I have undone an edit which purported to show what rolling stock will be used. Where is the evidence for such a proposal by a competent authority? We don't even have a line yet, let alone a franchise operator. To put something in now is just fantasy. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: 86.175.182.39 (talk) is a known WP:HOAXer. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Knock-on effect of unknown delay to electrification of Didcot - Oxford

Offending against OR and CRYSTAL, I added this

On 8 November 2016, Transport Minister Paul Maynard announced that electrification of the line between Didcot and Oxford was being deferred 'until further notice'. This might reasonably be taken as suggesting that the EWRL will not be electrified any earlier

Unsurprisingly, it has been reverted so I'm saving it here because I suspect it will become usable early next year when (if?) Hendry produces the 2017 status report.

By the way, is the Oxford - Bicester line electrified? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

References

No - the nearest electrification structures are at Didcot, where all the platform lines are now wired, although not yet energised. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Structures (but not wires) are now advancing towards Appleford. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The lines through Didcot (from Reading depot via Scours Lane Junction [37 miles 63 chains] to Milton Jc [54 miles 51 chains] on the Bristol line and to milepost 53½ on the Oxford line) were in fact energised on 10 September 2016; there's a notice on the fence adjacent to Platform 1 which I shall check in more detail. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

National Infrastructure Commission report

As it is 'encouraging words' rather than a specific announcement with money attached, I don't think this press release merits inclusion. If any disagrees, feel free. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Scope of funding in the Autumn Statement?

I wonder if I have given HMG more credit than it is due (by saying that it will fund the line as far as Cambridge)? The "National Infrastructure Fund" is for five years but journalists are talking about delivery [only] as far as Bedford by 2025, which is (a) more than five years and (b) not Cambridge. In any case, the claim is not actually in The Guardian citation, I must have found it elsewhere. I'm still digging through Google News but getting bogged down in the privatisation controversy. Journos are also more concerned about deadlines than accuracy, so I don't know what is credible. Help welcome! John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

From what I read in the latest Rail magazine, HMG have not gone further than what was said in the 2011 Autumn Statement, i.e. Bicester-Bedford and MK-Aylesbury. That remains the priority (Grayling's speech on 7 November) and what this year's Autumn Statement has done is to provide £100m accelerated funding to ensure that these sections can be completed before the end of CP6. As for Bedford-Cambridge, the statement confirms that £10m development funding will be provided. No commitments, just an "aspiration" (Martin Tett). Lamberhurst (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The railway technical press has been clear for a long time that Oxford-Bedford is definitely happening but Bedford-~Cambridge is only a long-term aspiration (much more difficult to do because the original route has been built over, etc.). -- Alarics (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I suspect what happened is that it got confused somewhere along the line with the proposed A421 Expressway, a dual carriageway between Oxford and Cambridge announced in the same statement. [The £35M allocated might just about do Caxton Gibbet (A428) to Black Cat Roundabout (A421/A1). M1 J13 to Oxford will need a lot more £35Ms!]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I've found the detail at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-infrastructure-and-construction-pipeline-2016 . Line 520 of the xl spreadsheet says (under 'Project Summary') Reinstatement of the rail line between Oxford/Aylesbury and Milton Keynes/Bedford (sic!). £1.035Bn overall project cost, including I assume what has already been spent. NB the get-out clause under Public Notes: The current funding settlement for Network Rail's Control Period 5 runs until 2019. Funding for all enhancements and schemes post 2019 will established as part of the Periodic Review process for Control Period 6 (PR'18). Of course a hard Brexit that means the City and its $60Bn tax decamps to Dublin or Dusseldorf will make this just a fond fantasy. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Sandy station to be moved?

Is this (A new report on the proposed East/West rail link could see Sandy lose its historic train station) worth mentioning yet or is it too wp:CRYSTAL? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

DfT asks NR to remove capacity for freight from the plan

According to TransportXtra, "the DfT is understood to have asked Network Rail to find further cost savings in the next phase of the East West Railway between Bicester and Bedford, including removing capacity for new freight traffic". It is not a formal announcement but is there any good reason not to include it? (insane as it may seem!). Is TransportXtra usually reliable?

References

In any case, I shall remove the sentence in the lead that says that the route will be just as important for freight, since there is nothing in the body to support it - and if this story is true then that statement can't be, though it should. What a way to run a rail-road! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Map of Phase 1 – Western Section

Despite the description, this is missing Bedford. The HS2 route seems to be mapped although it's not labelled - why include it then? --FDent (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you have misread it, unsurprisingly. The line shown (in purple => disused) is the old Great Central Main Line, not HS2. I don't understand why anyone thought it useful to include it but unless the designer is reading this, I can't see it being changed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I mean the line west of Aylesbury not the current line--FDent (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

If you both mean this map, the purple line from top (left of centre) to bottom (right of centre) is definitely HS2. Notice how it runs to the south-west of Aylesbury and to the north-east of Brackley, curving away from both - the GC main line ran through Aylesbury (it still does, it's the dark blue line also passing through Wendover) and curved towards Brackley, passing within half a mile of the town centre. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I must be out of my mind to question the judgement of RedRose on anything to do with trains but the purple line [=> disused, don't forget] really does look like the GCML route north from present day Aylesbury Parkway, bypassing Aylesbury, to Quainton then disused thereafter. See Great Central Main Line#Remaining infrastructure. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think that the GCML bypassed Aylesbury? In a sense it did, but much further away: the GCR had two routes between Neasden and Grendon Underwood, they diverged at Neasden Junction, and rejoined at Grendon Underwood Junction. One was shared with the Metropolitan Railway (via Harrow-on-the-Hill, Rickmansworth, Amersham, Aylesbury, Quainton) the other was mostly shared with the GWR (via South Ruislip, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Ashendon Junction). See RCH JUnction Diagram 145 and Diagram 146 (colour scheme for both is Great Central: pink; Great Western: yellow; Metropolitan: blue; dashed lines indicate joint lines). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, I bow to your superior knowledge. Whoever made that map ought to have done the same! What led me down these rusty sidings was the disused trackbed from Ashendon Junction to Calvert. I really don't know what the map-maker had in mind but I rather doubt that it was HS2. I don't think that it is worth spending baby more time on it. [Btw, the GCML article says that GCR services to AYS used competitor track, which suggests that the GCML did bypass it?] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A 1911 Railway Clearing House Junction Diagram. Ashendon Junction is centre left, where the Great Western (yellow) and Great Central (pink) diverge

The Railway Clearing House drawing and the mysterious map do look suspiciously similar! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

No they don't, the "Aylesbury bypass" line shown on the map is much closer to Aylesbury than the link via Ashendon. Ok, you were right all along, it is HS2. Why it is on the map, incorrectly coloured and munged with the conventional lines, is beyond me. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Why Link in the title?

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The East West Rail website ( cited after the name in bold) doesn't call it this. Googling suggest that the official name is just East West Rail or EWR. Is this a Wikipedia invention or a previous name? In my opinion 'Link' sounds like a short route, but why is Wikipedia sticking to this name and resisting the official one?--FDent (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Because that (EWR Link) is what it was called twenty years ago! Yes, it is that long. <sigh> I guess you could propose changing it to just EWR? I can't see anyone confusing it with the East West Rail project in the north (Hull-Liverpool) High Speed 3, " Northern Powerhouse Rail". At present, East West Rail redirects here without any evident objections. I'd wait to see what @Redrose64 has to say before moving to RFC, given his/her extensive experience in this area. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2018: drop the "Link" as no longer in Common Name

East West Rail Link → East West Rail – For at least the last five years, this proposed line has been known as "East West Rail". Per WP:COMMONNAME, that is what we should use. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The only factor that makes me hesitate is that it is not sufficiently unique. No doubt there are East West Rails in Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, India etc. Even in GB, Northern Powerhouse Rail is a proposed coast-to-coast route. Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. "East West Rail" is overwhelmingly the common name of this project and also the primary topic for the name. Anything else, such as the Australian East-West rail corridor can be added as a hatnote or a disambiguation page can be created. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Developments and announcements

I wonder if it would make for easier reading if the Developments and Announcements were taken out of the individual segment sections and brought to the front or somewhere). Or maybe just the announcements? Thoughts? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

New EWR Ltd logo

We can't use this logo until we have a legitimate version of it on Commons. The current version is not properly licensed. I will leave a message at the image talk page to explain how to rectify this error and so permit it to be used. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

"Proposer" of the project

Reluctantly, I have had to revert the contributions of a new editor. Wikipedia is critically dependent on any contributions being soundly based on fact and evidence, or at least that the supporting evidence is honestly believed to exist and will be added as soon as the editor has time to find it (and in the meantime is tagged with "citation needed" in case another editor can do it in the meantime).

The proposer of EWR is the consortium and they have been lobbying for it to happen for many years. This fact is evidenced in the article so the infobox should not say otherwise. The Company has been formed to deliver the project and they should certainly feature in the infobox. If anyone feels that the current balance is uneven, please explain here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

You're definitely right in saying that the Consortium were once a proposer of the scheme, however now that the project has been supported by the government and the East West Railway Company are responsible for delivering it, the balance about who is responsible for the project is firmly with East West Railway Company, and therefore should be the primary website which is displayed.

This is evidenced on the East West Railway Consortium's home page, where 2 of the first 3 links point to the East West Railway Company Website: latest information and route options - [1]. Further, their 'contact' page directs users to the East West Railway Company website for all queries about East West Rail [2]. This highlights that the East West Railway Company is now the main source for project information and engagement.

If further evidence is required, all recent articles about East West Rail direct the public to the East West Rail website: [3] & [4]

Pupppish (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

We might both be wrong! I think now that maybe it is the Department for Transport, in that it is they who are providing the cash. But if EWR Ltd is an "arms length agency" that will be issuing all the contracts, that supports your view. The "proposer" field in the template is not documented. Looking at other projects that use the template, I don't see an obvious pattern. But I certainly concede that is no longer the Consortium. Anyone else? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

RDTs

I added RDTs for Ox, MK, Bed, Cam etc in the 'see also'. I am not entirely sure that this was useful so if anyone dislikes, I won't object to their removal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Route to Stansted

I deleted this section because it appeared to be editor speculation / fantasy engineering and so contrary to wp:OR. It does not figure in any Company plans or even (recent) Consortium proposals. That I can find anyway though I didn't look ever so hard. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

New EWR map

New "services" (sic) map

This submission needs more work before going live

• None of the larger sizes actually work (clue, they end in .svg.png),
• The diagram claims that it is EWR but in fact it only shows the western section
• The diagram is cluttered by the inclusion in the same full black (rather than, say, grey) of existing mainlines.
• It claims to be the service pattern but no, it is just a track layout.
• The north-south line through Oxford is the Cherwell Valley line between Banbury and Didcot Parkway. There is a juncction there with the east-west Great Western Main Line from Paddington to Bristol, Cardiff and Fishguard (so the latter should be drawn horizontally).
• Onward connections from Reading should not be shown, per WP:NOTGUIDE

I have reverted the edit that added it, pending a better effort. The one it proposed to replace was poor but this managed to be even worse. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: If you think it is worse, please accept my apologies, for I tried to produce one that resembled a London Underground map, which is not intended to be drawn geographically accurately. I will try to implement your suggestions when I can find the time. Csharpmar (talk)

@Csharpmar:, if anyone should apologise it is me, for over-reacting. Geographic accuracy is not needed but topological (sic?) accuracy is, it should not mislead as this one does at Didcot. Another key principle of map drawing is that 'less is more': ask yourself what is the purpose of this map? Otherwise the temptation to add ever more detail can be overwhelming. (Including the Metropolitan to Aylesbury is an example). Information that is needed for context – but no more – must not obscure the primary message (which is why I advised that only the EWR line should be black, the others grey and stops on them omitted). Otherwise you end up mapping Network South East.

Your vertical lines should be BHM - Didcot via OXF, AYL to Calvert Junction, ECML, MML, ECML, and WAML. These should all be grey except AYL/Calvert.

Your horizontal lines should be EWR (black) and GWML (grey - this could be drawn diagonally if it fits better).

The only stops that should be shown are those on EWR plus AYL, DID, MKC and RDG (only because they are mentioned explicitly in the plan}.

I hope that this is more constructive. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: they end in .svg.png - that is normal for SVG images, it is how librsvg works. Have a look at any SVG image on Commons, and see where the various "Other resolutions" links go to. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, "Woodburn Sands" should read "Woburn Sands". -- Alarics (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Even newer EWR map

Speculative drawing of EWR

For my amusement, I drew another map of EWR. And then I asked myself – what does it contribute beyond what is provided by the standard template:Routemap already in the article? I couldn't think of anything. If that is true, then why have we even got the current drawing? Is there any convincing reason to keep it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

EWR2 Alliance autumn newsletter finally emerges

See Project Newsletter - Autumn 2020]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

March 2021 consultation

That subsection is maybe a bit dubious since it isn't a formal announcement. But it does contain quite a lot of interesting info so I think we should have it for now. When this "informal consultation" moves on to a "formal consultation", the latter should replace it and then be replaced again when actual decisions are announced. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Extension to Northampton

I reverted the addition of a campaigning piece advocating extension of the OXF-MKC service to NTN because (a) the citation is a WP:primary source (b) not reported by any reliable source (c) a business decision by a TOC on whether to terminate at MKC and accept transfers (same as Southern does) or to terminate at NTN, which is WP:not notable. And finally, among the things that WP:Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTADVOCACY. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) gives a red rating to stages two and three

Per WP:NOTNEWS, I think that this item should not go in the article, but others may disagree?

• Pitcher, Greg (25 July 2022). "East West Rail branded 'unachievable' by IPA". New Civil Engineer. This means the unit, which sits within the Cabinet Office, does not believe the scheme can meet its objectives on time and within budget unless risks are addressed.

But with Shapps talking about cancelling these phases in any case, it may all become irrelevant anyway. What a wonderful government we have: dual carriageway from Cambridge to Oxford gets as far as M1 and stops; railway from Oxford to Cambridge gets as far as MML and stops. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure erealy but EWR are still holding a lot of consulation workshops in village halls with residents etc so maybe its not dead yet. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 17:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I would expect EWR Ltd. to continue as previously instructed until they are given formal instructions to the contrary. It may be relevant that Shapps was a possible leadership candidate at the time; a lot of ill-considered nonsense has been thrown about by the candidates that the winner will have to wriggle out of. In this case, they have to be careful lest voters in the Blue Wall conclude that "levelling up" the north is actually levelling down the south. Cancelling EWR so that NPR can be revamped might not be a good look. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Page moving - note to editors

Do NOT move this page to East West Main Line as has happened twice in the last couple of days unless a consensus is reached at WP:UKRAIL. See that talk page for discussion on this matter. Thank you. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: this is a direct link to the current discussion. Hth, best to all, DBaK (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Editors do move it BACK to East West Main Line as soon as possible. That was its name until the 18th when with discussion in the talk page and without the 7 day wait it was moved no consensus was established. That they require a discussion to move it back is hypocrisy. This is just one of Wikipedia's increasing number of cliques throwing its weight around.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

A bold move is fine. So is reverting a bold move. Perfoming a bold move again is where the problem started. At that point, it was clear that there is no consensus for the new name but still you performed a cut-and-paste move without discussion. This has nothing to do with anyone's hypocrisy. --PhiH (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought I was doing a revert. I missed the original rename.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2022

East West Rail → East West Rail Line – This page was recently renamed from East West Rail. There was no attempt to discuss it on the talk page to establish consensus. There was no link to the discussion being had by the clique and the 7 days of normal discussion time did not happen Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways may be helpful to determine the actions over the last few days, i.e.:

1. Difficultly north moves EWR to East West Main Line;
2. I revert based on the fact that the move was not discussed prior to the move being carried out;
3. Kitchen Knife then copied-and-pasted content from EWR to EWML, which messed up several pages' histories (my thanks to Polyamorph who was able to merge them together, and reset it to the EWR article.
4. KN then created several new pages, including one or two in draft space, as a move from the EWML article (for - as far as I can see - no reason at all).

If the nom could also define who the 'clique' is/are, that would be helpful. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

OK My mistake I didn't see Difficult North's original unannounced move. This would all have been a lot less fraught if rather than having a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways aka the cliques, talk page or at least it had been commented on in the article talk page with a link to the discussion. Not everyone who edits individual articles is dedicated to the overall theme but may be editing because of a geographic or other connection, having discussion about specific pages in the project pages excludes those people. As for the moves for no reason, I was trying to work out how a move without creating a redirect was done.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It was Difficultly north who started the "discussion" at WP:UKRAIL. I use discussion in quotes because it was after they made the move, almost in the form of a fait accompli. I agree that they should have sought consensus here before making the move, but given that the discussion at UKRAIL coalesced almost immediately into a consensus that the move was improper I don't think that there's much to be gained by labouring over the procedurally-incorrect location of the discussion other than to say that a notification should have been posted here – and I think there's even less to be gained by continuing with silly veiled references like "the clique".

In fact I'm inclined to argue that @Mattdaviesfsic's revert back to 'East West Rail' would have been appropriate even without any discussion because the original move was obviously not in the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES, and especially so given that there was (and apparently still isn't) any reliable source indicating that the name change applied to anything other than the consortium delivering the project.

I would also note that you appear not to have made a post on this talk page either when you were contesting the various moves, which has a certain significance given that it could be said that the greatest complication in the process so far has been your botched copy-and-paste move. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree with responses made above, so just a small clarification: the engineering consortium building the Bicester-Bletchley phase is the East West Rail Alliance. The consortium of Local Authorities sponsoring the project is the "East West Rail Main Line Partnership" (having just renamed itself, which is how all our mess got started – in good faith. See eastwestrail.org.uk .) And for completeness, the organisation that the government established to deliver the project on time and on budget [because "the blob" (© 2020, Dominic Cummings) at Network Rail would only bog it down in pettifogging detail ] is the "East West Rail Company" (see eastwestrail.co.uk ). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I simply adopted what seems to have become the De Facto move policy in play at the moment. Which reverts to unapproved edits don't require consensus. I also put a comment on the edit "if you want to move establish concenssu first".--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Well that clearly is not true, since it was your move that required consensus. Regardless please read copy-and-paste move as well as WP:AGF. Some humility would also not go amiss. Polyamorph (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It is clearly very true as has been said moves without consensus can be reverted. Having a chat in a far-removed part of Wikipedia amongst a clique does not constitute consensus and you know it. So stop BSing.

• Oppose: "East West Rail" is overwhelmingly the common name of this project and also the primary topic for the name. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: the article describes the project as a whole, rather than just the actual railway line, and "East West Rail" remains by far the most common name. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as it is still just an engineering project. It is not even a line yet, let alone a main one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME. Polyamorph (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME and per the fact that there is no hurry here. We can take our time and see what emerges over the months and years, and in the meantime the magic of redirects and hypertext and all that good stuff should avoid people being absolutely unable to find where this stuff is. If we don't instantly get it right, it will cause no harm; it can stay how it is till things are clearer. I also think it would be very very helpful to drop, immediately and completely, this talk/accusation about cliques which I honestly think is only making things worse, notwithstanding what I assume it its user's good intent. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)